M.2

1. I, for one do not want everyone else to be a meat shield for me, only my male friends, to whom I am in turn also a meat shield. I don't want any woman or child to be a meat shield for me because they would be in my way, and they would do poorly in defending me (this goes for all the low-testosterone, lazy, manchild males too by the way). About the feather thing: Yes, men have been doing exactly what women want since the beginning of time, otherwise they would have gotten no game. I see no reason to complicate this. 2. Doesn't matter. The german army stood no chance against the red army. That didn't stop them from fighting. This was back when german men still cared about their women and children. 3. Lazy is not supposed to be a biological term. It is and always has been a sociological term. And I would argue that it is indeed measurable. But this is a bit off topic, so Ill leave it at that. 4. An ancient debate indeed, and I don't think we are going to be settling it here and now, so I won't push this either. 5. "Reducing dissatisfaction" seems like an overcomplicated way of saying "pursuing satisfaction", but I am sure it is no accident that you used those particular words. If I understood you correctly, you say that you are only willing to die for the lessening of dissatisfaction. How dissatisfied do you have to be to find death more appealing than life? Anything concrete?

1. Got it. A life for a better life. Makes perfect sense. 2. Why do you think I don't know how important definitions are? I simply think your definitions are wrong. Hold on... you think that sacrificing your life means that your goal is to die? Why do you assume that people risk their lives only not to die? Not dying cannot be part of your goal, because then you wouldn't risk your life. It all defeats the purpose in my view. If your goal was to not lose money, how could I convince you to bet on my horse? 3. I cannot argue for people who don't understand how life works. They don't avoid no-go zones because they are scared of death, but because they have nothing to protect there anymore. Police serve the community. When the community doesn't need them, they don't serve. 4. I don't think they died to receive money, since it sounds as absurd to me as it does to you. Claiming they died for money is like saying that a captain stayed on his sinking ship for money. They died for the oath they took and for the reputation of the Swiss Guard Corps. Whether that is a worthy death, we can debate that. It was not an isolated incident either. Every european monarch up to the 19th century used to hire the swiss due to their reputation for dying on the job. Another notable event is when the french revolutionaries stormed the king's palace, where all the french soldiers fled, but the swiss remained to die. 5. Great question. I believe that we die for what we live for, which are our values. 1. I don't disagree with you on the feather thing, but it is no question that women do prefer men who are willing to surrender their lives for something else. And that seems perfectly in-line with evolution, since a woman needs a man to stand between her and a sabre-tooth tiger instead of running away. I never said I agree with it, it's simply the facts. 2. No, not everyone is lazy. I can't believe I even have to argue this. Mr.Molyneux, for starters, is surely not lazy. Lazyness is a behaviour, at least according to the Webster dictionary. Whether everyone is selfish or not is a valid debate to have, although I would say that no, not everyone is selfish, and in fact, selfish people tend to be discarded from the gene-pool one way or another. 3. This is not meant to be a provocative question, as I am struggling with this myself: If you want to avoid misery, why don't you die? Often times I feel like this whole thing is not worth it. How is dissatisfaction a value?

1. To gain sth more than what you would lose... I suppose you mean a better life. 2. I am not going to argue over definitions you can look up in a dictionary. The only commonality between the two actions is the voluntary death. Besides that there are intrinsic differences. But I will accept your understanding for sake of argument. 3. I am not switching it. Since you refuse to say what you would sacrifice your life for, I ask you what you are willing to risk it for. You also keep arguing a point we agree on. I agree that risking a life is not the same as the occurance of death. I am arguing that one cannot risk their life without the willingness to lose it. When you make a bet on a sports team, you wage the money you would be fine with losing. Similarly, when a police officer signs up for a night shift, he is accepting the possibility that he may very well die of a gunshot. He is willing to lose his life. 4. I brought up the swiss guard precisely because they are a secular mercenary army. At least used to be in that era. Now they only recruit devout catholics. Would you please clarify why you think their actions were dumb?

1-3. Is the only scenario you can imagine of a person risking their life when their own life is in danger, or would you risk your life for something else as well? 6. You are the one conflating sacrifice with suicide. 7. Jumping out last minute? I'll give you a minute to think about that. I guess your point is that it is only worth risking one's life when success is guaranteed? 189 swiss guards remained on the steps of the basilica to ensure the escape of the pope, knowing they would die. Yes, they lost the war, but the objective of the swiss guard was not the war. But the pope survived, hence mission accomplished. So are the remaining guards suicidal idiots, and contrastly the 42 guards accompanying the pope smart for only risking their lives to the required extent?

Here are two maps to illustrate that we are already at war. It may not be total war, but it is a global war nevertheless. These are the countries where there is active armed conflict: And here are the belligerent countries (I mean the ones that are not highlighted. I guess it was much simpler to colour the ones not at war): Note: Micronations disregarded.

I have no idea who you are referri to where I underlined. The second part is a fair point, but inaccurate in practice I think. Mr.Molyneux has talked about this many times - the white feather thing. In real life, women are attracted to those who are willing to give up their lives for something, and not to the chips-eating selfish fat kids. For example, in South Korea, they have cumpulsory military service. And the men who haven't served have a really hard time finding themselves mates. I bring up Korea, because the natural phenomenon is very vivid there, since they are constantly in imminent danger. 1,2. Ok, I don't see why you think I disagree with you there. 3. I am having trouble understanding how you can risk your life without being ready to die. Maybe an example would help. 6. I am not sure how much you know about the Jesuit missionaries to Japan. The Japanese realised, unlike anyone else in the world, that if they eecuted missionaries, even more japanese are drawn to christianity, but if they let them live, and merely limit their activities, then they were seeing better results. So there apparently death was more fruitful for the Jesuits than life. 7. This may not be the example most close to your heart. The kamikaze pilots found it worthwhile to directly and deliberately cause their own deaths in favour of their empire. You may argue with their values, but it is hard to argue that they would have been more effective doing something else. A well-placed fighter plane can take out an entire destroyer, while it takes at least 3 torpedoes on average to deal the same damage, all while there is the chance of missing. Another eample, which happens to be my favourite, was the last stand of the Swiss Guard during the sack of Rome of 1527 in defence of the Holy See. Yet again, you may not agree with their ideology, but it is hard to argue that they had another choice if they wished to hold true to their values. 1. I guess you have a valid argument, but there are still people in your country who find it worthwhile to enlist and fight and die for your country or whatever. How do you view them? 2. I see. So within your value system, your family is at the top. I can completely understand that. 3. Yes, here is my concern. In the east, people are still willing to die for their country, even though their society abuses them more, and that is why their culture is winning. To your question, my answer is yes. I think that values are the most important values we have, and it is not supposed to be easy to adhere to those values. We need men with backbone especially at a time like this. 4. I think if I wanted to die, I would have died already. However, you do have a point. My father is a very courageous and bold man, yet he told me once that my lack of fear, however admirable it may be, must be balanced out with reason. Hence the post...

1,2. Don't tell Juncker, but they are actually using live rounds on migrants, or at least hungary does. And no, they are not getting through anymore. There was however a mass attempt last month at breaking through the border, but that was stopped. So there is that... 3. I heard it makes all the difference in the police force or rescue services whether or not you are willing to die or not. There is this natural instinct that makes us hold on to dear life... Could be a factor. 4. Just trying to make logical ends. My apologies. 5. Earlier you said you would risk your life for things you could not live without. I thought you were referring to things you literally could not live without. Lets stay with the Leningrad example here, since that is less of a hypothetical. And just to clarify, I am not asking what you would actually do if you had traveled back in time, rather I am asking what you would want yourself to do. Yes, many children ate their parents and survived, then there were parents who ate their children, and also the people who ate other people, and lastly those that kept their integrity and died ...etc. I think we may have found some common ground here. The topic of the thread is "what to die for", and I assumed that people die for things they value over their lives. But now you say that one also dies for things they value equal to their lives, like one's children as you say for example. 6. I am really trying to think you are not strawmanning me. Nobody WANTS to die. (Except for suicidals I guess.) That is a given. The question is whether or not one WOULD die if the situation demands it. There are such situation, right?

1. Sometimes it is necessary to sacrifice your life. There are Macedonian and Hungarian police getting their heads smashed by third world migrants at this very moment in defence of the West. 2. I suppose the hungarian police could resign, go home, and move to a country that is not in the way of the massive horde of migrants, but most of them don't have the means to do that. 3. I would argue that yes, it is the same thing. Because if you are not willing to die, you are not really voluntarily risking your life. 4. Ok, that's fair. But this only means that I cannot count on you when it comes down to defending the west, becaue you would probably just run away. 5. So you would risk your life for food, shelter, clothes, water, and if necessary, you would kill me to get it because you could live without me. Is that a fair way to put it? To bring this into real life, I assume you are the person who during the siege of Leningrad ate his own children and lived, and I am the one who didn't and died. It's an honourable value to live and die for one's own. It's also the least of what we expect from men. I am actually struggling with this question myself, and that is why I posted - to get some perspectives. I have risked my life before, and I remember being more than willing to die, but I also recall not really thinking much of it at the time. Meaning I wasn't consciously thinking "what I hero I am, I am going to sacrifice myself for something good". It was more like a reflex really. And I also noticed that I had a very low stimulus threshold for this stuff, as I often caught myself in the middle of a fight with my friends idly standing by valuing their precious lives. Some of the time it wasn't even a fight I had a lot to do with, I simply saw injustice and intervened. The reason I am conflating fights with sacrifice is because in a real fight in a violent society, you have a very good chance of getting hit in the wrong place and going into a come for a year, or possibly forever.

1. Sorry 2. Sorry 3. Sorry. 4. I am not.

3. It is a good case that Protestantism was the beginning of the end of monarchy, but I think protestantism is only a part of the greater issue. Yes, the conclusion of WW1 was the turn of the tide, when suddenly republics outnumbered monarchies. 4. It is a popular myth that serfs and peasants of the medieval and renaissance were unfortunate beggars, not much better off than slaves, who had absolutely no freedom of movement nor class mobility. Human mobility and migration was much more prevalent centuries ago that it is today, as we see the examples of the Slavs, the Germans, the Huguenots, Jews, entire populations migrating to make a better life for themselves. As for individuals, you could always study at monasteries if you were smart, start a trade if you were clever, or kill a warlord and get knighted. These days every single person in any self respecting democracy is kept a very close eye on, while back in the day the state never cared about your personal life. The great "interference" of the state first occured during the French Revolution, with the end of monarchy. Also, even today, there is a tendency for monarchies, in comparison to proximate democracies to be much freer. Say what you want of Saudi Arabia, it is much freer than the Islamic Republic of Iran. Thailand is freer than Laos and Cambodia, Luxembourg is freer than all of its neighbours, Japan is freer than Korea and Taiwan. 5. Indeed, I was actually trying to emphasise that they got to power following the non-aggression principle, and by following the rules. Marriage into a royal family was one way of gaining legitimacy, but there was also the option of getting noticed by the Pope or the people and the nobles of a nation. by doing great deeds and getting knighted or sth. 1. Rulers, as far as we humans understand, are an absolute necessity to people. If that were not the case, there would be at least one example of a completely egalitarian anarchist society. 2. Verifying is, you no doubt know, is tricky, and that is why we have so many religons aroud. The "will of the gods" thing has been around for as long as there have been men. We have always believed that there was a will higher than our own. You can check the arguments of Aristotle. 3. Fair distinction. I can get behind that. Do you get more of a choice in a democracy or in a monarchy? 4. It's not ok. Humans are natural absolutists, and we believe that morality is universal, and does not depend on man. It takes a modern relativist to claim that morality is dictated by us.

I think we are in agreement, but I have multiple questions regarding your post. - What makes you think the muslim scholar is not going on jihad himself, and is doing so out of cowardice? - What do you consider brainwashing? - How do you know what he knows? Also... many muslim countries and communities actually support the families of jihadis financially, so they win I guess. - What do you mean by hellish? 1. Glad we agree. 2. Is it correct to summarise that you are not willing to die (max fight) for ideas, but would be willing to die for the people entrusted to you? If so, what is actually wrong with dying for ideas? 3. Exactly what I think. 4. If you die for happiness, you would not be there to enjoy it. So how does that work? Do you mean that you would gladly die in the pursuit of happiness? And if so, what is happiness, and why is it worth more than your life? Why did you use the word "corrupted"? I am not entirely sure what your second paragraph says. Do I understand correctly that you would not really give your life for anything, but you would fight for something, were there something to fight for? Also, why would you not fight if you were alone or underfunded? Do you fight only when victory is of great probability? Are you suggesting that we should do good, but not go as far as sacrificing our lives? What would happen if your dearly loved ones were threatened with imminent mortal danger? Would you not risk your life for them? I think (very much hope) your answer would be "yes, of course", but then where do you draw the line? So again, my question is: What is more valuable than your own life? Or is nothing more so?

Culture is the hierarchical system of values of a people. Depending on culture, we call certain people heroes, others fanatics, just because they died for something they believed in. For most of history, we have always known that while human life is precious, it is not the most valuable thing in the universe. People have always given up their lives or that of others in favour of other values. Socrates gave his life for truth, the 300 gave theirs for Greece, martyrs die for their sky daddy, the marine in the jungles of Vietnam died for... something, the alcoholic dies for his gluttony... etc On a personal note, I do not trust anyone who would not give his dear life for some sort of ideal. I have more respect, more trust, and more admiration for the Jihadi who very well may blow me up tomorrow, than for the aerage pathetic, lazy, fat, chips-eating, low-testosterone, selfish western kid who takes it out in the comment section on the Jihadi for being a "fanatic". What is the value most worth your life?

3. This is the question isn't it? How come monarchy fell out of favour, despite having been essentially the only form of government for 6000 years? I believe it has to do with the second greatest lie ever sold, which is democracy, that man needs no will but his own. With humanism came the Tower of Babel - we have become too confident in our own free will. And of course, man has free will, and can do whatever he pleases. But "democracy" is a comparatively new experiment, and so far it has already failed in most countries it has been tried in. 5. The story of Habsburg family, as I said, is the perfect manual on how to gain power. It's actually not even remotely a secret, as they made it their motto: "Leave the waging of wars to others! But you, happy Austria, marry!" In English: strong family, strong religion.

There is theory, and then there is practice. There are ideals, and then there are facts. I don't think it is reasonable to consider ALL muslims having violated the NAP, not even if MOST muslims have. There are muslims who are still children, muslims who could be killed for apostacy, muslims who just haven't been presented with reason and evidence yet. All that said, I do feel a deep hatred for everyone that calls themselves muslim, because I FEEL (emphasis here) like they have violated the NAP against me, giving me the right to retaliate. Making sense?

Right then. Even though I do not agree with your logic on an intellectual level, your logic is completely sound when applied in real life. People in Europe, from Ireland to Russia, we are all very afraid of all muslims. And those of us that are smart, Poland and Hungary, we do not want to see any muslims in our countries, no matter what kind of Muslims they claim to be. The same applies the other way around. People in the middle-east and affrica, whose homes have been bombed by american drones, do not care what kind of westerner you are. As long as you look western, you are the enemy. This is sad, but it is how we evolved.

- Ok, something we agree on. Quite frankly, I don't give two ships about the millions of sects within Islam. I think they all should leave their barbaric culture and join the west. - Right. Now tell me. Did ALL the muslims in Belgium aggress towards by brother by associating with the terrorists? And does he now have the right to nuke them? - I completely lost you on this point. So Stalin has associated himself with people who tried to conquer and enslave the entire western world by force, and you wouldn't even punch him? - I got the part that it is immoral. Do I get to do something about it, or do I tolerate it like you would tolerate Stalin? I would think that I have the moral obligation to put an end to everything immoral. I am profoundly enjoying this conversation, and I really appreciate your arguments. Please do not misunderstand my tone, be it a bit snarky.

Doctrinally centralised means that there is a single set of doctrine that everyone who claims to belong to that faith obseves. Ah, I think I see where we are speaking past each other. So my understanding of what you say is that someone who does not abide by the NAP, and anyone associated with them, has committed aggression towards me, thus giving me the right to act aggressively towards them. So tell me where I am wrong. Actually I was not making the "not all muslims argument". I was merely trying to see how your arguments work in practice. You seem to throw muslims (whatever they are) in the same basket. You got that last part down pretty well. Pretty much the reason why I could never call myself a muslim.

Catholicism, Orthodoxy, perhaps Mormonism can be defined objectively, since these are doctrinally centralised. The same does not apply to other religions. We can and we do discuss it, but no, Islam cannot be defined objectively. If you are willing to go with the idea that Islam is exactly solely what Muhammad said and did, then I think you won't run into many disagreements. (Emphasis on the "not many") I will be living in France for the next year, and in Belgium for the following few. Should I consider every muslim there an aggressor to the NAP and beat them senseless with a bat or not? Belgian and French muslims are notorious for harbouring terrorists, and my brother studies in Brussels where some terror attacks occurred, so it is pretty personal to me. I guess I could use nukes because they already escalated to bombs. I will take the liberty to assume that you will say it depends on the situation, but here is my problem really: What do we do with NAP aggressors? Do we simply sit back and make a cognitively refined assessment over a group, or do we have the right to act aggressively upon the assessment?

It is a shame that your base example was about Islam, because even much smarter people than either of us cannot define Islam. This was why I was trying to shove in another case to discuss. "They" is the communist/soviet/USSR sympathiser. Or a muslim. Whichever.

That's the thing. It is just one famous imam. Where is the Pope of Islam? Oh right, it was the great Sultan, who died along with the Ottoman Empire. The very first thing that occurred after the death of Muhammad was a great scism. Even muslims cannot agree on who is muslim and who isn't. I think you didn't notice a question of mine:

So they are violators of the NAP, but they are not aggressors? Would it not be completely fine to nuke all the violators, or what do you suggest? Ok, I can comprehend the opinion that ideas cannot be immoral without action. Actually (being the know-it-all nerd here), Islam is very much in effect a cherry-picking religion, much like protestantism, hinduism and buddhism. The only doctrinally centralised religions in the world are Catholicism, Orthodoxy and arguably Mormonism).

I'll take your reply to my previous question, Erwin.. However I am still trying to get your logic. - So you are saying that since Islam, or at least the founder of Islam, speaks and acts violence and violates the NAP, all muslims by default violate the NAP? - Further testing... Suppose I am a proud communist, and I support everthing the USSR ever did, but have never actually harmed anybody. Would you have the right to punch me on the street, since I have already violated the NAP? - I also noticed that you changed vocabulary a bit. First you said "violation of NAP", then you switched to anti-NAP. Is there a difference?

Would it not be a better example to take a mid-rank soldier instead, who was drafted into the military, then whose country subsequently declared war on another nation? Does the soldier violate the NAP as immediate consequence, or just as soon as he kills someone? I see that the key word is voluntary association, but the state of the soldier can be argued to be voluntary, since even draftees can theoretically get themselves dismissed.

As someone who knows waaaay too much about demonic possession, I say you hit the nail on the head with the contract analogy. Fully possessed people are effectively stripped of their free will. They could regain their free will if they wanted to, but they just can't want to, since they have no will. This has gotten a bit off topic, still it has a lot to do with free will, so I highly recommend you do some research into demonic possession in the vatican archives. Very... informative to say the least.

I don't disagree. But have you heard of possessed people?